Viewing page 3 of 28

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

✓

GS/TP
         
November 2nd, 1933.

Dear Mr. Langton-Douglas:

You will never know I am certain, how deeply I appreciated your very kind lines of October 24th, and your charming proposition contained in them. I cabled you at once that I was not interested in those two lots.

As regards No. 167, in the auction of Sotheby, November 16th., I do not consider the châsse as sufficiently fine equality. It looks like this particular type of champlevé enamel of a very flat surface about which there were long arguments years ago, as to whether it was made in Spain instead of Limoges - not that I personally think that it was made in Spain, but if this type of châsse were made in Limoges, they evidently were carried out in a rougher and less delicate way than the other type of champlevé made at the same time, and therefore I prefer to abstain from buying it. 

Lot. No. 179, November 17th., at Sotheby's, I know very well. As you probably also know, this bust belonged to Ambatiellos, to whom I believe it was sold by the Wildensteins. This bust was exhibited last year at the French Art Exhibition, when and where I saw it again. I am not suffieciently keen about it to bid. 

There is one lot, however, in this same auction - Lot No. 178, which in a way takes my fancy - the Gothic tapestry panel, but I could hardly give an order to buy such a piece without having seen it. Nowadays mille-fleurs tapestries are being restored in such a magnificent way that is extremely hard to tell, and furthermore, borders are added - actually woven in the tapestry, - which complicates the whole problem tremendously. Looking carefully at the photograph, it seems as though the entire left side of the mille-fleurs background were badly restored. It is unfortunate, as it does look attractive.
 
In turn, if you think of anything which we might do together here, along the lines which we spoke about when I called on 

you in London...